beliefs, and the preacher's pulpit at the core
of its life.
etc. etc. The relativity of truth permeates the Bahai teachings, to
such an extent that it would be quite impossible to understand who
Baha'u'llah is and what he hopes to achieve, without appreciating the
fundamental verity he begins
I didn't say what I meant very clearly.
I quite agree that the relativity of religious truth is not only in the
Guardian's writings, but in the Iqan and elsewhere in the Text -- and I
think he's using it to mean Progressive Revelation in the fullness of
that meaning as explained
: Relativity of Truth
Matt Haase wrote:
I had a conversation like this with a friend of mine, who introduced
me to his idea that the 'relativity of religious truth' meant more than
another word to say 'progressive revelation'. He presented an eloquent,
but unconvincing (to my mind) argument
Ian, Please send as attachment to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Sandy Pauer
Loveland, CO
Ian Kluge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If anyone is interested I will be pleased to send a copy of my paper
Relativism and the Baha'i Writings presented at Irfan Colloquium at Bosch
in May
If anyone is interested I will be pleased to send a copy of my paper
Relativism and the Baha'i Writings presented at Irfan Colloquium at
Bosch in May 2007.
Yes, please
Sen
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto
(e-mail) is sent by the Johnson County Community
Yes, please send an attachment to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
jilla Simmons
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:23:34 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE:
Relativity of Truth To: bahai-st@list.jccc.edu If anyone is interested I
will be pleased to send a copy of my paper Relativism
susan,
awesome, thank u again.
i would, to this point extract 4 samples, intactish, to the point of an
outline, with 2 phrases emphasized by me in the effort to increase the
common ground:
or the response would have run counter to wisdom and been incompatible
with that which is current
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 4:13 PM, firestorm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
matt,
what logical fallacy?
If you ask a question like How many gods/God is there? The standard
Muslim answer is one. A typical Buddhist answer is zero. And a
possible Hindu answer is 3003. And yet in some sense the Bahais
I don't know, I just feel that the Qur'an intends itself to be quite literal
when talking about the Oneness and Uniqueness of God.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 5:13 PM, firestorm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
matt,
what logical fallacy?
i mean this dead seriously.
if to say God is One is
If you ask a question like How many gods/God is there? The standard
Muslim answer is one. A typical Buddhist answer is zero. And a
possible Hindu answer is 3003. And yet in some sense the Bahais seem
to affirm all these different answers simultaneously.
Dear Gilberto,
So does Hinduism.
Who
I don't know, I just feel that the Qur'an intends itself to be quite literal
when talking about the Oneness and Uniqueness of God.
I'm sure it does. The Qur'an is trying to draw people away from idol
worship. The question is, what do our own Writings intend?
The information contained in
Well, actually there is a rather philosophical passage in Nahjul
Balagha (I don't know how Bahais necessarily view that text) which
actually does say something like that. (Or at least, one thing reminds
me of the other) But I don't think it then provides license for
polytheism.
Sermon 151:
Dear Gilberto,
I think the Bab was saying something along these lines. If God is
truly unknowable and wholly transcendent then any attempt to describe
Him including saying God is One is inadequate.
warmest, Susan
On 3/26/08, Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, actually there is a
by the relativity
of truth, we have to look at all of the passages where he made that
statement. Among these passages from him we see that he wrote that the
structure of the Mashriq incorporates this principle, and that it is a
major theme of the Iqan. The Guardian is not bringing up some entirely
On 24 Mar 2008 at 22:47, Matt Haase wrote:
I had a conversation like this with a friend of mine, who introduced
me to his idea that the 'relativity of religious truth' meant more
than another word to say 'progressive revelation'.
I guess you mean meant NOTHING more than ... ??
If religious
Matt Haase wrote:
I had a conversation like this with a friend of mine, who introduced
me to his idea that the 'relativity of religious truth' meant more than
another word to say 'progressive revelation'. He presented an eloquent,
but unconvincing (to my mind) argument that boils down
Sent: March 25, 2008 11:47 AM
To: Baha'i Studies
Subject: Re: Relativity of Truth
Matt Haase wrote:
I had a conversation like this with a friend of mine, who introduced
me to his idea that the 'relativity of religious truth' meant more than
another word to say 'progressive revelation'. He
brent,
:I don't personally know how it
symbolizes truth being relative, other than as meaning Progressive
Revelation:
i would say 9 doors is a good starter.
and putting this as a historical statement based on the comments by abu
fadl is imho far less real than seeing the abjad value.
Matt,
there's a simple way to sort out the idea:
tell me which Revealed Text is error...
nb i dfo nottt say..which commne t by whatever ecclesiatic is just so much roo
dandruff...
but which Revealed Text is error?
if none, then...?
The information contained in this e-mail and any
susan,
thank u for exposing me to that Tablet.. is It around anywhere handy in toto?
i would offer that the word valuable here is tricky. to my vague
understadning, value points directly to that which causes the apprehender
to see a potential to further his own image of accomplishment,
What I mean Firestormin, is that not all of the Religious Scriptures agree
on fundamental theological matters. For instance, how am I supposed to
believe in the Hindu Scriptures that list a whole slew of various gods,
while simulteanously believe in the Hebrew and Qur'anic scriptures which
condemn
susan,
thank u for exposing me to that Tablet.. is It around anywhere handy in toto?
Yeah, right here:
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/TU/tu-4.html
I think if we read it carefully this issue of relativity will be much clearer.
warmest, Susan
The information contained in this e-mail
One of the friends mentioned: If all truth is relative then no proof is
absolute.
There are passages in the writings of the Guardian where he explained
that what he meant by the relativity of religious truth, is that
revealed truth is relative to the age in which it is revealed
On 24 Mar 2008 at 3:53, Brent Poirier Attorney wrote:
There are passages in the writings of the Guardian where he explained
that what he meant by the relativity of religious truth, is that
revealed truth is relative to the age in which it is revealed. That
is, the Guardian used this phrase
to be yet another passage where the Guardian is using
the relativity of religious truth as a synonym for Progressive
Revelation; that there are two aspects to Revelation -- the essence
which remains unchanged from age to age, and the non-essential part of
each Revelation which is subject
There are passages in the writings of the Guardian where he explained
that what he meant by the relativity of religious truth, is that
revealed truth is relative to the age in which it is revealed. That is,
the Guardian used this phrase as a synonym for Progressive Revelation.
Dear Brent
I had a conversation like this with a friend of mine, who introduced me to
his idea that the 'relativity of religious truth' meant more than another
word to say 'progressive revelation'. He presented an eloquent, but
unconvincing (to my mind) argument that boils down to the concept that since
God
I don't personally view the principle of the
relativity of religious truth as a broad statement about the nature of
all truth, or even of all Revelation, but only about that part of
Revelation that is subject to change by the Manifestation.
And what part of Revelation isn't subject to change
On 3/24/08, Matt Haase [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had a conversation like this with a friend of mine, who introduced me to
his idea that the 'relativity of religious truth' meant more than another
word to say 'progressive revelation'. He presented an eloquent, but
unconvincing (to my mind
29 matches
Mail list logo
